Anhui man was confiscated by the Tobacco Bureau while shopping for 12 cartons of cigarettes online. The man tried to get them but failed to sue him. How did he go to court?

Anhui man was confiscated by the Tobacco Bureau while shopping for 12 cartons of cigarettes online

“I bought a few cartons of Huazi from the Internet at a low price, why should they be confiscated?” A man in Anqing, Anhui Province, bought a few cartons of cigarettes online at a low price. He bought 12 cartons of Huazi cigarettes at a reasonable price, but was unexpectedly intercepted by the Tobacco Bureau. The man refused and bought the cigarettes for his own consumption. Why was it confiscated without reason? Wang is an online shopping enthusiast. One day, he saw an authoritative website selling Huazi brand cigarettes, and the price was actually cheaper than in a physical store. Wang was moved, so he placed an order for 12 Huazi cigarettes at one time to prepare for the New Year. Consumption by yourself.

However, a week later, Wang checked the logistics information and found that the express delivery had been signed for. Wang was confused. Did the express company make a mistake? So he called the courier company and asked about the whole story. However, the staff told Wang that the package had been confiscated by the Tobacco Bureau. Huaziyan is here to entertain relatives and friends, so you can’t accept this cigarette! Afterwards, Wang took the initiative to go to the Tobacco Bureau to explain how he contacted the cigarette seller and provided the cigarette seller’s WeChat ID.

In the following days, Wang went to the Tobacco Bureau three times and asked for 12 cartons of cigarettes, but the Tobacco Bureau refused to return them or issue a confiscation receipt to Yang. Wang believes that the "Regulations on the Implementation of the Tobacco Monopoly Law" stipulates that unauthorized manufacturing, wholesale, operation, and sales without the approval of the national competent authority to obtain qualifications are subject to the management of local tobacco administrative departments.

Purchasing cigarettes for your own consumption is not within the scope of the tobacco administrative department. The Tobacco Bureau should return the 12 cartons of cigarettes to you. When Wang's request failed, Wang sued the Tobacco Bureau to the court in anger, requesting that the Tobacco Bureau's confiscation of Wang's 12 cartons of cigarettes be illegal; the Tobacco Bureau should pay Wang's transportation expenses, food expenses, and lost work expenses incurred in pursuing the cigarettes. ***2,639 yuan, compensation of 4,000 yuan for Wang’s mental loss and a public apology, and at the same time bear the litigation costs of this case.

First of all, legal buyer-seller relationships are protected by law. As far as this case is concerned, the Tobacco Bureau conducted sampling and evidence collection on the cigarettes involved and found that the 12 cigarettes Wang purchased were all counterfeit registered trademarks and shoddy cigarettes. Wang reached a cigarette sales agreement with a person outside the case through the Internet. The sales contract formed was invalid because it violated the mandatory provisions of laws and regulations, and the sales contract was not protected by law.

In other words, Wang cannot obtain ownership of the items involved in the case through an invalid contract, that is, Wang is not the rights holder of the cigarettes involved. Secondly, in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations, the tobacco company treated the cigarettes involved as unowned property when searching for the sender to no avail, and when it was confirmed that they were "counterfeit registered trademarks and shoddy cigarettes", the tobacco company treated the cigarettes involved in the case as unclaimed property in accordance with laws and regulations. stipulates that it should be destroyed publicly, the evidence of its administrative actions is conclusive, the application of the law is correct, and it complies with legal procedures. For this reason, the court of first instance rejected all Wang’s claims in accordance with Article 69 of the Administrative Litigation Law. The man's request to sue to the court was unsuccessful

Wang believed that the first-instance judgment was wrong, refused to accept the judgment, and insisted on appealing for four reasons:

1. The Tobacco Bureau confiscated his Cigarettes and refusing to issue a confiscation receipt are clearly illegal.

2. Regardless of whether the cigarettes involved are counterfeit or shoddy products or illegally transported in excessive quantities, the Tobacco Bureau should punish the sellers. It has nothing to do with them. There is no legal basis for them to confiscate the cigarettes they purchased;

p>

3. The Tobacco Bureau issued an announcement on the municipal government information disclosure website that it was impossible to find the cigarette seller. It ignored the WeChat ID and other clues provided by Wang, reflecting that it actually did not want to find the cigarette seller at all.

4. The Tobacco Bureau decided to publicly destroy the cigarettes involved, but has not done so yet.

Since this case is an administrative lawsuit, the Tobacco Bureau must provide evidence to explain whether its penalty decision is legal and issue corresponding supporting documents. Accordingly, the Tobacco Bureau defended the four reasons raised by Wang:

1. The Tobacco Bureau handled the administrative cases involved with clear facts and legal procedures. In terms of facts, the seized cigarettes were identified as counterfeit and shoddy products. Regardless of the quantity, they constituted an illegal act of transporting tobacco specialty products without a license. In terms of procedures, the law enforcement personnel handling the case all have administrative law enforcement qualifications, and all measures and deadlines taken are in compliance with legal regulations.

2. Wang Mouzhi’s act of buying fake goods is not protected by law.

According to Wang’s statement, the Huazi (hard box) he purchased online was 280 yuan/carton and (soft box) 400 yuan/carton. The above prices were significantly lower than the national uniform wholesale price of cigarettes, which is 381.6 yuan/carton for Huazi (hard box). Bars, Huazi (soft box) 583 yuan/bar.

Counterfeit cigarettes infringe on intellectual property rights and harm consumers’ health. Wang knew clearly that the cigarettes purchased online were counterfeit, but still knew that the cigarettes were fake, which violated the mandatory provisions of the law. It was an invalid purchase and was not subject to the law. Protect.

3. The facts and reasons claimed by Wang cannot be established. Since Wang is not a party to the case, the Tobacco Bureau does not need to issue any confiscation receipt to him.

Regarding the clues provided by Wang, the Tobacco Bureau has exhausted all means to find the person selling counterfeit cigarettes, but in the end, it was still unable to confirm his true identity. In this case, the Tobacco Bureau can only publicly destroy the unowned counterfeit cigarettes in accordance with relevant legal provisions. In summary, we request the court of second instance to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original ruling.

In this case, the administrative penalty decision made by the Tobacco Bureau was aimed at the shipper's behavior of transporting tobacco monopoly goods without a tobacco monopoly transport permit. Wang was not the administrative counterpart of the administrative penalty decision. . At the same time, the 12 cartons of cigarettes involved in the case are still in the mail, and Wang Mou has not signed for them. At this time, Wang Mou has not yet obtained the ownership of the tobacco involved in the case, so Wang Mou has no legal interest in the administrative penalty.

To sum up, Wang is neither a counterparty to the administrative action nor a citizen with an interest in the administrative action, and does not have the qualifications to be a plaintiff in this case. Therefore, Wang’s grounds for appeal cannot be established, and the acceptance fees for the first and second instances shall be borne by Wang. So, what do you think of this?